Title 7, Sec. 239, Code of Alabama; Daugherty v. Powe, 127 Ala. 577, 30 So. 524; Gordon v. Hailey and Bumpass, 273 Ala. 254, 139 So.2d 296; Berry v. McGravie, 273 Ala. 248, 139 So.2d 317. Although the right of amendment is to be liberally construed, there must not be an entire change of parties. Rodgers v. Meredith, 274 Ala. 179, 146 So.2d 308; Osborn v. Reed, 275 Ala. 194, 153 So.2d 629; Dearborn Stove Co. v. Dean, 40 Ala. App. 459, 115 So.2d 253; Vinegar Bend Lbr. Co. v. Chicago Title Trust Company, 131 Ala. 411, 30 So. 776. Whether an amendment to a pleading is merely a correction of an error in the name of a party or introduces a new party when the question is disputed and put in issue, such amendment then becomes a question of fact to be determined by the trial court. Springer v. Sullivan, 218 Ala. 645, 119 So. 851; Hill v. Burton, 30 Ala. App. 594, 10 So.2d 302; Van Landingham v. Ala. Great So. R. Co., 243 Ala. 31, 8 So.2d 266. Where evidence is ore tenus, or partly so, trial court judgment has the effect of jury verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal unless palpably wrong and contrary to great weight of the evidence.

GOODWYN, Justice. We granted certiorari to review the opinion and decision of the Court of Appeals in Dearborn Stove Co. v. Dean, formerly doing business as D. D. Transportation Co., 115 So.2d 253. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal ex mero motu.

While there is some authority that a shipper who does not have title may not bring suit, we consider more consonant with Massachusetts law the view, supported by the weight of authority and adopted by the trial judge, which permits a shipper by reason of its interest in the contract of shipment to bring an action against the carrier whether or not it has title. See, e.g., Dearborn Stove Co. v. Dean, 40 Ala. App. 459, 463 (1958), rev'd on other grounds, 269 Ala. 561 (1959); Bruner v. Chicago E.I. Ry., 87 Ind. App. 374, 378 (1928); Ellington Guy, Inc. v. Norfolk S.R.R., 170 N.C. 36, 37 (1915). See also East Tex. Motor Freight Lines v. W.H. Hutchinson Son, 241 S.W.2d 759, 764 (Tex. Ct. App. 1949) (shipper not possessing bill of lading has burden of proof to show that its "interest in the contract of affreightment" has not been transferred).